New Reply

Bill proposed to block public access to publicly funded research

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Jan11-12, 03:16 PM   #1
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member

Bill proposed to block public access to publicly funded research


More threats to the open research community. Between this and SOPA...

THROUGH the National Institutes of Health, American taxpayers have long supported research directed at understanding and treating human disease. Since 2009, the results of that research have been available free of charge on the National Library of Medicine’s Web site, allowing the public (patients and physicians, students and teachers) to read about the discoveries their tax dollars paid for.

But a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month threatens to cripple this site. The Research Works Act would forbid the N.I.H. to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In other words, taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/op...20works&st=cse
 
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
science news on PhysOrg.com

>> 'Whodunnit' of Irish potato famine solved
>> The mammoth's lament: Study shows how cosmic impact sparked devastating climate change
>> Curiosity Mars rover drills second rock target
Jan11-12, 04:33 PM   #2
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Here is more information on the bill and what you can do to oppose it.

“Essentially, the bill seeks to prohibit federal agencies from conditioning their grants to require that articles reporting on publicly funded research be made accessible to the public online.”
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/31184
 
Jan11-12, 08:38 PM   #3
 
What possible purpose does this bill have, other than to be a handout to a few journals?
 
Jan11-12, 08:44 PM   #4
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4

Bill proposed to block public access to publicly funded research


Quote by Jack21222 View Post
What possible purpose does this bill have, other than to be a handout to a few journals?
Out of the blue two clueless politicians come up with this? Anyone think something is rotten in Denmark? Come on. I doubt either of them even knew any of those journals existed before they were "approached". And what's their reasoning to support this?
 
Jan11-12, 08:47 PM   #5
 
Quote by Evo View Post
Out of the blue two clueless politicians come up with this? Anyone think something is rotten in Denmark? Come on. I doubt either of them even knew any of those journals existed before they were "approached". And what's their reasoning to support this?
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it sounds like they're being paid off one way or another.
 
Jan11-12, 08:54 PM   #6
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by Jack21222 View Post
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it sounds like they're being paid off one way or another.
I'm not either, but how else would this have come about? It's obvious lobbyists got to them, whether it was perks or brainwashing doesn't really matter. How can this be in the best interest of the public? If taxpayer money is used to fund the research then stipulations on availabilty of the research should be allowed. Right now the journals have exclusive rights for a year. Considering that the journals don't actually pay for the research, they just profit off of publishing, I think that is more than fair. And they make a lot of money.
 
Jan11-12, 09:24 PM   #7
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Science Advisor Science Advisor
Retired Staff Staff Emeritus
Sounds like they're just returning to the old way. When NIH first started requiring free access, there was a lot of pushback from publishers. It's hard to cover costs if you're giving away your product free. All it ended up doing was raising publication costs since journals had to start charging enormous page fees to publish in order to offset free distribution.
 
Jan11-12, 09:28 PM   #8
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by Moonbear View Post
Sounds like they're just returning to the old way. When NIH first started requiring free access, there was a lot of pushback from publishers. It's hard to cover costs if you're giving away your product free. All it ended up doing was raising publication costs since journals had to start charging enormous page fees to publish in order to offset free distribution.
But they charge huge subscription fees, do you really think they are hurting? Considering the costs that book publishers have with no guaranteed sales or subsciptions, I can't see how these journals aren't making a killing.
 
Jan11-12, 09:28 PM   #9
 
Quote by Evo View Post
... It's obvious lobbyists got to them. ...
That seems like the most reasonable guess ... until more is learned about this. This has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, imo. It's just business as usual ... imho. And it's one of the things that might be improved upon wrt American politics ... again, just imho.
 
Jan11-12, 09:32 PM   #10
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by ThomasT View Post
That seems like the most reasonable guess ... until more is learned about this. This has nothing to do with any sort of conspiracy, imo. It's just business as usual ... imho. And it's one of the things that might be improved upon wrt American politics ... again, just imho.
No one is suggesting a conspiracy.
 
Jan11-12, 09:49 PM   #11

Community 2012
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Evo View Post
But they charge huge subscription fees, do you really think they are hurting? Considering the costs that book publishers have with no guaranteed sales or subsciptions, I can't see how these journals aren't making a killing.
That's a poor comparison. The number of people who buy books/magazine subscriptions vs. peer-review journals is many orders of magnitude apart. In fact, for example, I can probably count the number of subscriptions to the American Journal of Physics in my city of half a million on my hand. There is certainly good reason to suspect there is something going on but just saying that what they sell is expensive is hardly an argument.
 
Jan11-12, 09:55 PM   #12
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by Pengwuino View Post
That's a poor comparison. The number of people who buy books/magazine subscriptions vs. peer-review journals is many orders of magnitude apart. In fact, for example, I can probably count the number of subscriptions to the American Journal of Physics in my city of half a million on my hand. There is certainly good reason to suspect there is something going on but just saying that what they sell is expensive is hardly an argument.
But book publishers have to pay authors up front before anything is published. It's a gamble that doesn't pay off many times. They have to pay for book tours and all of the associated expenses, advertising, forwarding books to bookstores never knowing if anything will sell. Journals have none of these expenses, it's pure guaranteed profit. What expenses do journals have? And they have exclusive rights for the first year! After a year, it's a bit old, eh? Plus they've already raked in the subscription money. There is no need for this bill.
 
Jan11-12, 10:20 PM   #13
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
No matter what medium is used all journals will have expenses. As was said, it's hard to sell something if its being offered for free. That said, I do see an issue with not being able to see the results of something that our tax dollars paid for without having to pay for it again. But I'm sure the details are much different than what I imagine.
 
Jan11-12, 10:31 PM   #14
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by Drakkith View Post
No matter what medium is used all journals will have expenses. As was said, it's hard to sell something if its being offered for free. That said, I do see an issue with not being able to see the results of something that our tax dollars paid for without having to pay for it again. But I'm sure the details are much different than what I imagine.
But it's not free. They have pre-paid subscriptions that are a fortune, I would bet they're higher profits than your average publication, they have a captive audience. They don't need to print and distribute more than ordered. And for the first year, they can charge ridiculous amounts per paper. $35 for a paper when an entire magazine costs two bucks? What is that, $600 per magazine and they have no costs other than printing (and paying themselves). And that's on top of the millions of dollars in subscriptions fees. They will still continue to get all of this without the bill. They are not at risk of losing anything that they already have, that's the point, they want not only keep what they have, they want to take everything away from the public. What's wrong here?
 
Jan11-12, 10:43 PM   #15
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Evo View Post
But it's not free.
What's not free? The work published on the NLMW's website is offered free of charge according to what was posted.

They will still continue to get all of this without the bill. They are not at risk of losing anything that they already have, that's the point, they want not only keep what they have, they want to take everything away from the public. What's wrong here?
You're telling a business not to after possible profit? Good luck with that. Businesses don't survive by not going after possible profit.
 
Jan11-12, 10:50 PM   #16
Evo
 
Mentor
Blog Entries: 4
Quote by Drakkith View Post
What's not free? The work published on the NLMW's website is offered free of charge according to what was posted.
Do they not have pre-paid subscriptions from universities, medical centers, etc?? It's not provided for free.

You're telling a business not to after possible profit? Good luck with that. Businesses don't survive by not going after possible profit.
How many publishers have a bill passed guaranteeing them perpetual profits, on tax funded research, no less.
 
Jan11-12, 10:57 PM   #17

Community 2012
 
Recognitions:
Gold Membership Gold Member
Quote by Evo View Post
But book publishers have to pay authors up front before anything is published. It's a gamble that doesn't pay off many times. They have to pay for book tours and all of the associated expenses, advertising, forwarding books to bookstores never knowing if anything will sell. Journals have none of these expenses, it's pure guaranteed profit. What expenses do journals have? And they have exclusive rights for the first year! After a year, it's a bit old, eh? Plus they've already raked in the subscription money. There is no need for this bill.
There's the key, can you actually show me that they have such minimal expenses?
 
New Reply
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: Bill proposed to block public access to publicly funded research
Thread Forum Replies
Beginning of the end for government-funded scientific research [in America]? Current Events 37
Should publicly-financed research be publicly-available? Current Events 20
General Relativity is mainly public funded ... Special & General Relativity 0